Congo Civil War

[Commander-K25]

The civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become the third bloodiest conflict in history, right behind the World Wars. Over 4 million have already died in the conflict which involves the armies of Uganda, Congo, Burundi and Rwanda, tribal militias of the Lendu and Hemb tribes, and innumerable small rebel factions and breakaway groups. All forces are fighting for differing goals and reasons.

Atrocities abound including mass graves that are found daily, victims are hacked to death with machetes and cannibalism is frequently reported. UN peacekeepers number less than a thousand and have orders not to interfere. Currently, the Un is considering sending many more troops to stop the slaughter and Tony Blair is considering sending in signifigant British Forces.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these developments?

A history of the conflict can be found here.

Information on UN involvement.

Information on atrocities.

[Ozcar]

At 5/31/03 05:10 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: The civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become the third bloodiest conflict in history, right behind the World Wars.

Good info...but..

Are you sure that the 1WW and 2WW are in the first position of the the first and second bloodiest conflicts?

How about Vietnam?

[Commander-K25]

At 5/31/03 05:16 PM, Ozcar wrote:
Are you sure that the 1WW and 2WW are in the first position of the the first and second bloodiest conflicts?

WWI - over 8 million

WWII - over 25 million

How about Vietnam?

not even close.

[antiqkk]

WWII Stats:

POLAND (19.6% of total population)

123,000 - 850,000 / 4.8 million - 6 million /

SOVIET UNION (~2.9% of total population; Ukraine lost 19.1% of its total population)

8,668,000 - 13.6 million / 7 million - 16.9 million / *

* 3.7 million - 4.6 million combined Poland and Soviet Union

YUGOSLAVIA (10.6% of total population)

300,000 / 1.2 million - 1.4 million / 54,000 - 60,000

GERMANY (9.1% of total population)

3,250,000 - 4.5 million / 2 million - 3,680,000 / 125,000 - 130,000

GREECE (6.2% of total population)

100,000 / 285,000 - 462,000 / 58,000 - 65,000

AUSTRIA (5.6% of total population)

270,000 - 380,000 / 80,000 - 93,000 / 58,000 - 65,000

HUNGARY (4.6% of total population)

136,000 / 294,000 - 750,000 / *

* 300,000 - 402,000 combined Hungary and Ukraine – I took this away from USSR civilian death estimates

JAPAN (3.4% of total population)

1,506,000 - 2 million / 300,000 - 2 million

CZECHOSLOVAKIA (3.0% of total population)

46,000 / 17,000 - 155,000 / 245,000 - 277,000

FINLAND (2.7% of total population, may include earlier Russo-Finland war)

82,000 - 84,000 / 2,000 - 16,000

NETHERLANDS (2.4% of total population)

7,900 - 12,000 / 92,000 - 98,000 / 102,000 - 106,000

ROMANIA (1.7% of total population)

300,000 - 520,000 / 225,000 - 425,000 / 40,000 - 220,000

FRANCE (1.5% of total population)

250,000 - 340,000 / 267,000 - 406,000 / 64,000 - 83,000

CHINA (the first military figure is Chinese Nationalist forces only; 1.2% of total population, may include the earlier Manchuria invasion)

1.3 million - 3.5 million / 10 million

ITALY (1.1% of total population)

242,000 - 400,000 / 72,000 - 164,000 / 7,500 - 8,000

BELGIUM (1.1% of total population)

10,000 - 13,000 / 44,000 - 51,000 / 24,000

ALBANIA (0.9% of total population)

(28,000)

UNITED KINGDOM (0.7% of total population)

274,000 - 326,000 / 60,000 - 93,000

PHILIPPINES (0.7% of total population)

27,000 / 91,000

NEW ZEALAND (0.7% of total population)

10,000 – 12,000 / 0

CANADA (0.4% of total population)

39,000 – 42,000 / 0

AUSTRALIA (0.4% of total population)

29,000 / 0

UNITED STATES (0.2% of total population; entered war 1941)

200,000 – 500,000 / 0

DENMARK (0.1% of total population)

4,000 / * / *

* Denmark’s population practiced non-cooperation rather than active resistance. The Jewish population was smuggled out of the country.

INDIA (--)

36,000 / *

Vietnam was not more than 60,000 deaths

[Ozcar]

At 5/31/03 05:20 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/31/03 05:16 PM, Ozcar wrote:
Are you sure that the 1WW and 2WW are in the first position of the the first and second bloodiest conflicts?

WWI - over 8 million

WWII - over 25 million

Wow! God bless america! lol

verfluchte amerikanische Leute! sie sind in allen jenen Kriegen.

[FUNKbrs]

wow, commander keeps us abreast of important issues once more. this make Iraq seem like a game of patty cake. I'm all for American involvement in this, these atrocities need to stop.

[Slizor]

wow, commander keeps us abreast of important issues once more. this make Iraq seem like a game of patty cake. I'm all for American involvement in this, these atrocities need to stop.

Wow wow wow, calm down, Mr Gung-ho. It's not a simple war, it's a civil war. Which side would be supported, what about the involvement of the surrounding countries? It would be extremely short-sighted just to go in their with the aim of "stopping atrocities". What would happen after?

[Slizor]

Vietnam was not more than 60,000 deaths

American losses were 60'000, Vietnamese were from 2-5 million.

[D2Kvirus]

At 5/31/03 05:40 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: wow, commander keeps us abreast of important issues once more. this make Iraq seem like a game of patty cake. I'm all for American involvement in this, these atrocities need to stop.

Just to pat myself on the back, I mentioned this about a week ago, as "The Forgotten War." I said it before, and I say it again - HOW DO YOU FORGET A FUCKING WAR'S GOING ON?!?

[mysecondstar]

as much as i'd like to see something done in central Africa there will be no US involvement. the second the issue comes up people won't help but to bring up Somalia. then something tom-foolery about Black Hawk Down. plus the was has nothing to do with the "War on Terror". regardless of whether or not there is any link to al Qaeda or any more of that nonsense the US did with Iraq. most Americans can't picture a central African man hi-jacking a plane. having said that there will be no risk of life in the rainforest.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/1/03 08:40 AM, Slizor wrote:

Vietnam was not more than 60,000 deaths

American losses were 60'000, Vietnamese were from 2-5 million.

Yer, but the Viatnamese probably weren't al reported, hence the massive gap between max and minimum.

[Kenney333]

It seems there should be alot more international attention on this subject than there is, my grandparents work as missionairies in Uganda and never told me anything about this war,it would also make sense if peacekeepers were more active there, since that is their purpose

[fantom326]

At 6/1/03 08:13 AM, Slizor wrote:

wow, commander keeps us abreast of important issues once more. this make Iraq seem like a game of patty cake. I'm all for American involvement in this, these atrocities need to stop.

Wow wow wow, calm down, Mr Gung-ho. It's not a simple war, it's a civil war. Which side would be supported, what about the involvement of the surrounding countries? It would be extremely short-sighted just to go in their with the aim of "stopping atrocities". What would happen after?

it would be similar to what we have in the gaza strip right now. we cant shift toward one side, because neither one is really a saint. maybe if the US tried to WORK with the UN on this issue, some steps could be taken. alas, because of their voice of reason during the iraq war, it seems as if the government is unwilling to accept the UN as a legitimate ally in this and other peacekeeping efforts.

[fantom326]

At 6/1/03 10:24 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 5/31/03 05:40 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: wow, commander keeps us abreast of important issues once more. this make Iraq seem like a game of patty cake. I'm all for American involvement in this, these atrocities need to stop.

Just to pat myself on the back, I mentioned this about a week ago, as "The Forgotten War." I said it before, and I say it again - HOW DO YOU FORGET A FUCKING WAR'S GOING ON?!?

they dont have any oil, so we didnt see any real need to intervene. beating saddam was cake, so they went for it to make themselves look good. notice pakistan is the one with the atrocious track record, but we're actually working with them. wheres the logic in this?

[mysecondstar]

At 6/1/03 06:52 PM, fantom326 wrote: they dont have any oil, so we didnt see any real need to intervene. beating saddam was cake, so they went for it to make themselves look good. notice pakistan is the one with the atrocious track record, but we're actually working with them. wheres the logic in this?

not this oil thing again. it's so redundant i'm not even going there. but as for Pakistan i will get into this. there was a reason for our cooperation with Pakistan. and that is that they were the only neighbor to Afghanistan with a significant border beside Iran. and the US needed an alliance with them to stop al Qaeda and the Taliban from entering. there's the logic.

[nitroxide]

At 6/2/03 02:21 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/1/03 06:52 PM, fantom326 wrote:

not this oil thing again. it's so redundant i'm not even going there. but as for Pakistan i will get into this. there was a reason for our cooperation with Pakistan. and that is that they were the only neighbor to Afghanistan with a significant border beside Iran. and the US needed an alliance with them to stop al Qaeda and the Taliban from entering. there's the logic.

Listen i do believe that oil had something to do with it but my comment here has nothing to do with supporting that i just think is kind of ironic and funny:

Bushes first job was selling Oil drilling equipment.

[antiqkk]

At 6/2/03 02:28 AM, nitroxide wrote: Bushes first job was selling Oil drilling equipment.

Bush's first job was sucking cock for pennies in the desert. Then he discovered oil.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/2/03 02:33 AM, antiqkk wrote: Bush's first job was sucking cock for pennies in the desert. Then he discovered oil.

go away.

[antiqkk]

At 6/2/03 02:34 AM, mysecondstar wrote: go away.

I actually allowed myself one single unjustified comment, 7AM on Monday morning. And there you go. I am being sent off to Cambodia.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/2/03 02:40 AM, antiqkk wrote:

At 6/2/03 02:34 AM, mysecondstar wrote: go away.

I actually allowed myself one single unjustified comment, 7AM on Monday morning. And there you go. I am being sent off to Cambodia.

I thought it was funny, of course, I also think watching ravens eating the eyes out of roadkilled squirrels is funny too.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/1/03 06:52 PM, fantom326 wrote:
they dont have any oil, so we didnt see any real need to intervene. beating saddam was cake, so they went for it to make themselves look good. notice pakistan is the one with the atrocious track record, but we're actually working with them. wheres the logic in this?

Easy: Guess where the hard materials (ie, warheads) for the Pakistani nuclear program came from.

Anyway, the correct answer is as follows:

As none of the major news broadcasters don't have journalists stationed in DR Congo in case something kicks off, they're the ones that are not only forgetting the war, but concentrating on one where there is plenty of coverage due to the mass of correspondants they have there already. The population of DRC haven't missed it, I doubt the neighbouring countries have, but that doesn't amount to much when there's a war that is obviously going to be far more important going on in the Middle East.

Here's a hint, people: A mass grave isn't 12 people, as were found in Iraq. When you're talking dozens, that's a mass grave, and there are plenty of those in countries they aren't bothering to lift a fingernail about.

Which reminds me, when are they stepping in to sort out Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Would it be about the same time it took the US to concern themselves over the junta in Chile - they installed Pinochet 30 years ago, and the only way people stopped "disappearing" was when he stepped down five years ago. How's that for International Policing?

[fantom326]

At 6/2/03 02:21 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/1/03 06:52 PM, fantom326 wrote: they dont have any oil, so we didnt see any real need to intervene. beating saddam was cake, so they went for it to make themselves look good. notice pakistan is the one with the atrocious track record, but we're actually working with them. wheres the logic in this?

not this oil thing again. it's so redundant i'm not even going there.

its reduntant because its so fucking obvious. its brought up so many times and then just as many times ignored. how you can ignore that the president and most of his cabinet have their stock holdings in oil companies? cheney was the fucking president of haliburton? shit, its reduntant to me too.

:but as for Pakistan i will get into this. there was a reason for our cooperation with Pakistan. and that is that they were the only neighbor to Afghanistan with a significant border beside Iran. and the US needed an alliance with them to stop al Qaeda and the Taliban from entering. there's the logic.

so youre saying the ends justify the means. BULLSHIT. we made an alliance with a nation that has just a bad track record with human rights, is just as "evil" as the nation we're invading, and had the weapons and probably plans to do the same thing bin laden did. if thats logic, then we're in a worse position then i thought.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/2/03 04:20 PM, fantom326 wrote: its reduntant because its so fucking obvious. its brought up so many times and then just as many times ignored. how you can ignore that the president and most of his cabinet have their stock holdings in oil companies? cheney was the fucking president of haliburton? shit, its reduntant to me too.

if this war is about oil where is the oil? where is my 99 cents for premium gas? oh yea we aren't receiving any.

so youre saying the ends justify the means. BULLSHIT. we made an alliance with a nation that has just a bad track record with human rights, is just as "evil" as the nation we're invading, and had the weapons and probably plans to do the same thing bin laden did. if thats logic, then we're in a worse position then i thought.

is the enemy of my enemy my friend or my enemy? but here's the justification. here we have a moderate president. he is doing things to secularize a very Muslim state. the US loves to see this because it almost ensures that a fundamentalist nation like the Taliban won't sprout up.

as for the past there are steps into the future to right the wrongs. when we helped the Iraqis, for instance, we didn't care what their track record was. we just cared that they wanted to do away with Iran. and as for bin Laden we didn't care about what he did or what he believed in we just cared that he wanted the Soviets to go away. the US has learned from their mistakes.

and on a different note: CONGO CIVIL WAR

[Commander-K25]

Fantom, here's a suggestion, since you feel a need to steer everything over to something about America and/or Bush, why don't you just make another thread so we can discuss THE ACTUAL TOPIC here.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/3/03 12:01 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Fantom, here's a suggestion, since you feel a need to steer everything over to something about America and/or Bush, why don't you just make another thread so we can discuss THE ACTUAL TOPIC here.

sometimes i wonder what it would take for some people to keep their focus for the little time it takes to write in this forum. it is one of the most frustrating things i've ever witnessed here. the good news is they don't last so long. the bad news is they keep on coming.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/2/03 11:54 PM, mysecondstar wrote:
if this war is about oil where is the oil? where is my 99 cents for premium gas? oh yea we aren't receiving any.

Last week, it was announced that exports in oil from Iraq will resume shortly. How to raise suspicion, Lesson #1...

is the enemy of my enemy my friend or my enemy? but here's the justification. here we have a moderate president. he is doing things to secularize a very Muslim state. the US loves to see this because it almost ensures that a fundamentalist nation like the Taliban won't sprout up.

However, at the same time, this can cause rebel faction who, being exceedingly pissed off with US foreign "policy", rise up. Did the WTC get destroyed because bin-Laden was an Evil Taliban Warrior, or was it retaliation from the time in 1998 Afghanistan was bombed, with little (if any) eveidence by the US for terrorist attacks in Africa. Not, repeat NOT, Clinton diverting attention from the main reason he was in the papers at that exact time. Yes, you got it...

and on a different note: CONGO CIVIL WAR

Ah, we "remembered" it again...Is that how wars are "forgotten", since the US military aren't involved in any way? Well, that and the media aren't flocking there for weeks in advance hoping to get footage that tops the one of the SCUDs flying overhead in '91...

[fantom326]

At 6/3/03 12:01 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Fantom, here's a suggestion, since you feel a need to steer everything over to something about America and/or Bush, why don't you just make another thread so we can discuss THE ACTUAL TOPIC here.

there isnt much to discuss. the UN hasnt done squat, aside from sending a handful of soldiers that arent going to do anything, and i dont think we'll be heading over there anytime soon. the point i was trying to make with the iraq tangent was why we wont. but i suppose youre too hardheaded to realize that.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/3/03 09:23 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/2/03 11:54 PM, mysecondstar wrote:
if this war is about oil where is the oil? where is my 99 cents for premium gas? oh yea we aren't receiving any.

Last week, it was announced that exports in oil from Iraq will resume shortly. How to raise suspicion, Lesson #1...

ah D2KVirus. it's been a while. always great to have you disagree with me. and i truely mean that without sarcasm. as for the oil we will soon see how cheaply the US can buy it for.

is the enemy of my enemy my friend or my enemy? but here's the justification. here we have a moderate president. he is doing things to secularize a very Muslim state. the US loves to see this because it almost ensures that a fundamentalist nation like the Taliban won't sprout up.

However, at the same time, this can cause rebel faction who, being exceedingly pissed off with US foreign "policy", rise up. Did the WTC get destroyed because bin-Laden was an Evil Taliban Warrior, or was it retaliation from the time in 1998 Afghanistan was bombed, with little (if any) eveidence by the US for terrorist attacks in Africa. Not, repeat NOT, Clinton diverting attention from the main reason he was in the papers at that exact time. Yes, you got it...

the '98 missle barrage on Afghanistan was due to several factors. namely the US embassy bombings in Africa and the WTC bombing both linked to al Qaeda. once the connections were made Clinton fired off the missles. it's just uncanny coincidence he decided to do it then. and as for rebel uprising in Pakistan it has nothing to do with those in power in the country. if such an uprising comes to pass we'll see the revival of the same tactics used during the Cold War. only we aren't stopping the communism spreading but fundamentalist muslim nations.

and on a different note: CONGO CIVIL WAR

Ah, we "remembered" it again...Is that how wars are "forgotten", since the US military aren't involved in any way? Well, that and the media aren't flocking there for weeks in advance hoping to get footage that tops the one of the SCUDs flying overhead in '91...

i'll agree. it is a forgotten war to those other than those involved. and the US has a bad taste in their mouth from Somalia. completely different region but ask the average American if they can point to Congo on the map or even Somalia for that matter. and with no prior engagements ever in Africa it doesn't have instant name recognition from the American public. and the Americans would never fight a war in a place they have never heard of. and i'm not even talking about people our age (the 18-40 demographic). i talking about the middle to upper aged Americans. they were social conscious during the American crisis with Iran which involved Iraq. the only African country some may know is Libya.

[fantom326]

At 6/3/03 06:46 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

i'll agree. it is a forgotten war to those other than those involved. and the US has a bad taste in their mouth from Somalia. completely different region but ask the average American if they can point to Congo on the map or even Somalia for that matter.

yes, we are quite ignorant of other cultures at times, it seems.

and with no prior engagements ever in Africa it doesn't have instant name recognition from the American public. and the Americans would never fight a war in a place they have never heard of.

heh, depends what our interests are. funny how we forgot about rowanda too.

and i'm not even talking about people our age (the 18-40 demographic). i talking about the middle to upper aged Americans. they were social conscious during the American crisis with Iran which involved Iraq. the only African country some may know is Libya.

well, thats a stereotype. i love how you people like to bitch about people stereotyping america and how we're singled out, but when its to your advantage you do it yourself. im not saying its bad, but come on, be consistent. stereotypes have to come from somwehere, and theyre not even always bad.

[misterx2000]

Stuff like this is not covered enough by teh media...which covers celebs and a minor US car accident more often.